VIJAYASHANTI INSTRUMENTS CORPORATION Vs. DIRECTORATE OF WOMENS DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE GOVT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 1 is the Directorate of Womens Development and Child Welfare, Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Director. For the purpose of procurement of preschool material, a tender notice was issued by Respondent No. 1 with even date 6-5-1997 in the proceedings No.IFB.No.66/WB.ICDS/PS/97-98 and also issued the bidding document stipulating the conditions, the terms and the schedule for such purpose, and it appeared, in Eenadu Telugu Daily dated 16-5-1997. The petitioner, Respondent No.2 and one M/s. Mahaveer Industries which was impleaded as Respondent No.3 subsequently by virtue of the orders in WPMP.No.32129 of 1997, from among others submitted the tenders. As per the bidding document and the notification, the following was the programme for submitting (he tender application, consideration opening etc. "National competitive Bidding for the supply of pre-school materialBid reference:Tender No.66/WBICDS/PS/97-98.Date of commencement ofsale of bidding document:19-05-1997Last date for sale of biddingdocument:16-6-1997 12.00 NoonLast dale and time for receiptof bids:16-6-1997 2.00 pmTime and date of openingof bids:16-6-1997 3.00 pmPlace of opening of bids: O/O Directorate ofWomen's Developmentand Child Welfare,8-8-222, Vengal Rao Nagar,Hyderabad-500038.Address for communication : As above.

(2.) The petitioner and other tenderers except Respondent No.2 submitted their tenders within the time stipulated namely before 2.00 p.m. on 16-6-1997. But the 2nd respondent did not submit the tender within the lime stipulation on the said date and instead it was submitted late by seven minutes i.e. at 14.07 p.m which was objected to by the tenderers including the petitioner. Therefore, on 16-6-1997, the bid was not opened. The concerned officer of 1st respondent who was dealing with the matter recorded the time of submission of the bid of Respondent No.2 on the bid cover but did not open the tenders in view of the objections of other tenderers and in view of the late submission of the tender by 2nd respondent. However, having been persuaded and convinced for the delay in submitting the tender by the 2nd respondent by seven minutes on the relevant date, the 2nd respondent opened the tenders on 18-6-1997 through its Accounts Officer, thereby the tender of 2nd respondent was found to be in order and accepted. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition and further aggrieved by that the impleading party -Respondent No.3 has challenged the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 18-6-1997 accepting the tender of 2nd respondent on certain grounds.

(3.) Mr. C. V. Mohan Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in addition to the grounds raised in the writ petition by the petitioner has raised the following contentions: